ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.

com

Like 0 Share Tweet Share

Search

PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence>Year1957>January1957Decisions>G.R.No.L10058January31,
1957SEVEROASUNCIONv.JUANBENALISA

100Phil840:

Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

ENBANC

[G.R.No.L10058.January31,1957.]

SEVEROASUNCION,ETAL.,PlaintiffsAppellees,v.JUANBENALISA,ETAL.,Defendants
Appellants.

Laurel&SalongaforAppellees.

RicardoOlivasforappellants.


SYLLABUS


1. LIMITATION OF ACTION RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY PRESCRIPTION AS A DEFENSE. Where
plaintiffscauseofactionarosemorethan20yearsagowhenthedefendantsrefusedtocomplywiththe
donation and to surrender the property to the plaintiffs, the prescription of said action is as provided in
Article 116 of the New Civil Code and under Sec. 40 of Act. 190. Under the latter, the defense of
prescription set up by the defendants would defeat plaintiffs action if defendants allegation of fact in
supportthereofcouldbeproved.


DECISION
DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

REYES,A.,J.:


ThiscasewasinitiatedintheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizalbyacomplaintfiledbythespousesSevero
Asuncion and Pascuala Ilustre on August 7, 1950, to recover from the spouses Juan Benalisa and Lucia
Suarez certain pieces of real property located in Tanay, Rizal province, which were alleged to have been
acquired by the plaintiff Pascuala Ilustre by way of donation propter nuptias made in her favor by the
defendantJuanBenalisaonAugust26,1927.Answeringthecomplaint,thedefendantspousesadmitted
having made a donation propter nuptias in favor of the plaintiff Pascuala Ilustre and her first husband,
PabloBenalisa,whowasdefendantsson,butalleged,bywayofspecialdefense,thatafterthedeathof
the said Pablo Benalisa on June 8, 1929, the plaintiff Pascuala Ilustre came to live with her coplaintiff
SeveroAsuncionandthatbecauseatonetime,sometwentyyearsbeforethiscase,thesetwomadean
attemptagainstthelifeofthedefendantJuanBenalisa,thelatterhadsincethenrefusedtocomplywith
the terms of the donation that defendants had never given the plaintiffs an opportunity to take
possession of the property donated and that such right or interest as plaintiffs may have had in said
propertywaslostbecauseof"theirfailuretoclaimthesamewithinthestatutoryperiod."

cralawvirtua1awlibrary

Onadatesetforthehearingofthecase,thepartiessubmittedastipulationoffactsfortheapprovalof
thecourt.Briefly,thestipulationsaysthatonAugust27,1927,thedefendantsexecutedthedonationin
ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty question in favor of plaintiff Pascuala Ilustre and her first husband Pablo Benalisa, that these two were
Division married on the fourth of the following month, and that Pablo Benalisa died on June 28, 1929. Upon the
stipulation being approved, the defendants, moved for a continuance, and the court without objection
fromtheplaintiffs,grantedthemotionandsetthecaseforhearing.Butwhenthedayofhearingcame,
 thecourt,insteadofholdingatrial,merelyorderedthepartiestosubmitamemorandumonthequestion
ofwhetherthedonationinquestionwas"stillvalidandsubsisting."Thenafterthepartieshadfiledtheir
respectivememorandaonthatquestion,thecourtrendereditsdecisiondeclaringtheplaintiffsownersof
the property in litigation and ordering that they be given possession thereof. From this decision, the
defendantsappealedtotheCourtofAppealsbutthatcourthascertifiedtheappealhereasinvolvingonly
questionsoflaw.

After going over the record, we find that the decision below has been rendered on an instrument basis.
Theactionisfortherecoveryoftitleto,andpossessionof,realpropertyallegedtohavebeendonatedto
oneoftheplaintiffs.Thedonationisadmitted,buttheanswersetsuptheprescriptionwithallegationto
the effect that for more than 20 years prior to the institution of the action, the defendants have
persistentlyrefusedtocomplywiththetermsofthedonationandhaveneverallowedtheplaintiffstotake
possessionofthepropertydonated.Asplaintiffscauseofactionarosemorethan20yearsagowhen,as
allegedintheanswer,thedefendantsrefusedtocomplywiththedonationandtosurrendertheproperty
totheplaintiffs,theprescriptionofsaidactionis,asprovidedinarticle1116ofthenewCivilCode,tobe
governed,notbytheprovisionsofthatCode,butbylawspreviouslyinforce.Thelawapplicableissection
40ofactNo.190.(Conspectov.Fruto,31Phil.,144).Thatsectionreads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC.40.PeriodofPrescriptionastoRealEstate.Anactionforrecoveryoftitleto,orpossessionof,
realproperty,oraninteresttherein,canonlybebroughtwithintenyearsafterthecauseofsuchaction
accrues."
cralawvirtua1awlibrary

Underthissection,thedefenseofprescriptionsetupbythedefendantswoulddefeatplaintiffsaction,if
defendants allegations of fact in support of that defense could be proved. But the court did not receive
evidence on those allegations, ruling that prescription did not lie because defendants were holding the
property in trust for the plaintiffs and were, therefore, not in adverse possession thereof. The ruling is
untenablebecausefromtheallegationsoftheansweritisclearthat,fromasfarbackas20yearsago,
thedefendantshavepersistentlyrefusedtorecognizeplaintiffsclaimtothepropertyindisputeandhave
alsopreventedtheplaintiffsfromtakingpossessionthereof.Theseallegationsufficientlysuggestadverse
possessionaswellaspositiverepudiationofthesupposedtrust.Astowhethertheallegationsaretrueor
notisamatterthatshouldbedeterminedonthebasisofevidence.Thatevidenceislackingbecausethe
lowercourt,afteradmittingapartialstipulationoffacts,heldnotrialforthereceptionofproof.

In the circumstances, justice demands that the defendants be allowed to prove the facts on which their
defenseofprescriptionispredicated.

January1957Jurisprudence Wherefore, without need of passing at this time upon the other questions raised in the appeal, the
decision appealed from is set aside and the case ordered remanded to the court below for further
G.R. No. L9542 January 11, 1957 PLARIDEL proceedings.Withoutcosts.
SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. P. L. GALANG
MACHINERYCO. Paras,C.J.,Bengzon,Padilla,Montemayor,BautistaAngelo,Labrador,Concepcion,Reyes,J.B.L.,Endencia

andFelix,JJ.,concur.
100Phil679

G.R. Nos. L10360 & L10433 January 17, 1957
JULIANOA.ALBAv.JOSED.EVANGELISTA

100Phil683

G.R. No. L7909 January 18, 1957 CIPRIANO E
UNSONv.ARSENIOH.LACSON BacktoHome|BacktoMain

100Phil695

G.R. No. L9704 January 18, 1957 LORENZO QUICKSEARCH
LLANOSv.CLAUDIOSIMBORIO,ETAL.

100Phil707

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. L8346 January 22, 1957 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.PROCESOBINSOL 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
100Phil713
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R.No.L8645January23,1957PORTMOTORS
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
v.FELIPERAPOSAS
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
100Phil732
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

G.R. No. L8896 January 23, 1957 EARNSHAW 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. COURT OF
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
INDUSTRIALRELATIONS,ETAL.
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
100Phil742
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

G.R. No. L9660 January 23, 1957 FIDEL 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
AMANTEv.JUANP.ENRIQUEZ
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

100Phil748 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013 2014 2015 2016
G.R. No. L9442 January 28, 1957 URBANA D.
ANZURESv.FIDELIBAEZ

100Phil752

G.R. No. L8169 January 29, 1957 SHELL
COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIREMENS MainIndicesoftheLibrary> Go!
INSURANCECOMPANYOFNEWARK

100Phil757

G.R. No. L9044 January 29, 1957 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.PONCIANOARPON

100Phil765

G.R. No. L9507 January 29, 1957 GONZALO N.
RUBICv.AuditorGeneral

100Phil772

G.R. No. L9633 January 29, 1957 EMILIO

SORIANOv.ANTONIOASI

100Phil785

G.R. No. L7586 January 30, 1957 NARCISA B.
DELEONv.NATIONALLABORUNION

100Phil789

G.R.No.L8613January30,1957LAMALLORCA
TAXIv.ROMANGUANLAO

100Phil792

G.R. No. L9195 January 30, 1957 CITY OF
MANILAv.MANILAREMNANTCO.

100Phil796

G.R.No.L9621January 30, 1957 ANG BENG v.
COMMISSIONEROFIMMIGRATION

100Phil801

G.R. No. L9666 January 30, 1957 STANDARD
VACUUMOILCO.v.KATIPUNANLABORUNION

100Phil804

G.R. No. L7030 January 31, 1957 PEOPLE OF
THEPHIL.v.HILARIOMENDOVA

100Phil811

G.R.No.L7846January31,1957RAFAELLITAM
v.REMEDIOSESPIRITU

100Phil819

G.R. No. L8685 January 31, 1957 COLLECTOR
OFINTERNALREVENUEv.AURELIOP.REYES,ETAL.

100Phil822

G.R.No.L8960January31,1957GERONIMODE
LOSREYESv.MARIAB.CASTRO

100Phil831

G.R. No. L9126 January 31, 1957 ASIA BED
FACTORYv.NATIONALBEDANDKAPOKINDUSTRIES
WORKERSUNION

100Phil837

G.R. No. L10058 January 31, 1957 SEVERO
ASUNCIONv.JUANBENALISA

100Phil840

G.R. No. L10998 January 31, 1957
BERNARDINO O. ALMEDA v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET
AL.

100Phil844

Copyright19982016ChanRoblesPublishingCompany |Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions
ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary|chanrobles.com RED